9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 872X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled by the assessee, restored this appeal to the file of this Bench for the limited purpose of deciding Grounds No II VI as the same have not been decided when the matter had been disposed off by the ITAT vide its Order dated 28.03.2012. Keeping in view of the mandate, Grounds no II VI of the original appeal are adjudicated as hereunder: 3. Ground No II of the original appeal relates to the disallowance of ₹ 14,70,263/- made by the AO and the same confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) against the assessee s claim of deduction u/s 35D. 3.1 The relevant facts are that the assessee claimed ₹ 14,70,263/- u/s 35D of the Act being 1/10 of the expenses relating to rights issue of shares. However, in the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction u/s 35D. The issue, however, was restored by the Tribunal to the file of the AO for the purpose of quantifying the amount of deduction. As submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee, the AO has already quantified the amount eligible for deduction u/s 35D in assessment year 1999-2000 as per the direction of the Tribunal. We, therefore, direct the AO to allow the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 35D for the year under consideration keeping in view the expenses eligible for such deduction quantified by him in assessment year 1999-2000. Ground No. 2 of the assessee s appeal is accordingly treated as allowed. We, therefore, in the absence of any differentiating mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to the year under consideration, the amount of tax, duty, cess etc. is liable to be included in the value of purchases, sales, opening and closing stock. It is not appropriate to include the closing Modvat in the figure of closing stock without modifying the figures of purchases, sales and opening stock. The Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. [(2009) 318 ITR 116 (Bom.)] and the Hon ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Mahavir Alluminium [(2008) 297 ITR 77 (Del.)] have held to this extent. As the authorities below have not adjusted other figures with the amount of tax, duty, cess etc., we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of AO for deciding it afresh in accordance with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
